Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Interesting question regarding what Government accounts opposition parties have access to, before an General Election. From what I understand, Government department accounts that are published are always lagging behind and would not include some amounts which are classified as 'commercially sensitive'.  Therefore opposition parties and Parliamentrary select committees would not have access to accounts which contain real time up to date information. If a new Government have found £20 billion of spending liabilities they did not know about, this could be true, as £20 billion is not that much when you look at total Government expenditure. Government department are making decisions on spending all of the time and it could be the previous Government were planning tax changes and/or spending cuts to balance the books.  Jeremy Hunt has recently said that if the Tories had stayed in Government and held an Autumn budget, it would have been very difficult to cut taxes as some had wanted.
    • Everyone knows the tories were hiding the costs - and even added 4 billion quid to the taxpayers high interest credit card to fund a chunk of the NI tax reduction - prime example - look at how much cost was hidden re the Rwanda dogwhistle -10 Billion quid     and re the handful of rebels on the benefit limit If the disasters (like the Rwanda rubbish) of Tory dogs being wagged by the extremist minority ERG tail doesn't highlight the issues .. Enlighten yourself here .. (fat chance) Sir Keir Starmer is right to show Labour rebels the door WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Editorial: Suspending seven MPs following their rebellion over the two-child benefit cap is more than a prime minister flexing his political muscle. It is a...  
    • Trump instigated that didnt he @theoldrouge despite losing the election - and Biden mitigated as much as he could within his boundaries?   "President Donald Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Somalia in the wake of his 2020 election loss"   “The order was for an immediate withdrawal, and it would have been catastrophic,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., one of two Republican members of the special panel. “And yet President Trump signed the order.”   Trump ordered rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan after election loss WWW.MILITARYTIMES.COM The memo was among the latest revelations from the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol building.   Although i agree that Biden should have done more to mitigate Trump driven disasters
    • ok your WS is wrong. Paragraph 16 and 17 says  you did not contract with evri but this is not true - see below  Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency post 251 of occy thread - £844 lost    you should also add a paragraph on donough v Stevenson talking about the fact that even without contract there is still duty of care to goods and by failing to deliver this duty has been breached.   Make those changes and post it back up here and I'll check over things again
    • no we cant add the occy thing because leicster are being difficult people so we're just going to go without it for now
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Debt Management Companies


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5268 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I wonder if this is an interesting point of contention:

I used a debt management company for about 30 months, who charged me £ 100.= per month for their services. (keeping DCA's from calling me, or stop them from writing to me and harrassing me etc etc. and the usual stuff.) They told me "You will not have to deal with anymore phonecalls or official documents once we are handling your account. (that was not true for a start!)

Anyway, because of the pressure, we thought that at the time this was a good idea. After about 30 month, we decided that it was time to take matters in our own hands, and that it would be a much better idea to take the monthly £100,= and use that to add to our repayments. Then we found this wonderful site and have since started to send out requests for CCA's, which we are now processing. Lots to be told on that.

 

What I now would like to know is the following: Aren't the debt management companies, when they start to act and manage your debts on your behalf, responsible for verifying whether debts that they manage on your behalf, and for which service you pay them a fee, are indeed legally enforceable before they phone the creditors and agree some sort of half hearted repayment schedule under the expected 'due diligence' exercise they are required to make, so that they can deal with or 'manage' your debts in a professional and responsible manner?

 

I would dearly like to take the crooks I dealt with to court and claim my monthly fee back on the basis that they were negligent and failed to apply 'due diligence' to see whether the debts in question were enforceable or not and thus deliver the contracted services!! ( approx 30 X £100.=)

 

Is there anybody on the forum who knows anything about this sort of stuff??

 

I am curious, not only that, but the £3000 in accumulated wasted fees would come in very handy to pay off some of the debts!!!!

 

Anybody can give me advice on this please?

 

Thanks

DoubleU

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a simliar problem and would like to know if anything can be done with claiming back money from these companys. I have been charged £200 upfront fee, which I am most sure wasnt the amount that was told to me at the begining . I am on benifits and I phoned the debt management company today and they advised me that I would be best off cancelling and [aying the people directly. They havent provided information requested by one company that I now know of who are now threatning further action and demanding money off me.

I was paying £20 a week from begining of october and they have only just started making small payments to the companys inthe last three weeks only being 10% of the total amount owed.

one of the companies also that I owed money to that they have paid is southbank captial who i have found out tonight shouldnt really be taking money as they are not licenced, so refering to the above case is this something we can use against the DMC?

Any advice appriciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Karmaceutical,

Yup, it looks to me like you have similar reasons, and I believe there are many more of us, who have wasted tens of thousands of pounds on these companies, which are basically 'bloodsuckers' Their business is to earn money over the back of those that are in financial trouble. I am not for a minute suggesting that they don't do anything at all; unfortunately the only thing they do do, is negotiate a low (????) rate of repayment on behalf of the debtor. They don't challenge, they don't ask, they certainly don't manage. A quick setup on transfer of minor sums on a monthly basis, which in my case probably took no more than 15 mins complete, which I could have done myself. When you miss a month, the act like DCA's, and as soon as you decide to stop the agreement, they stop talking to you and refuse any further communications. I wonder if there is a similar way to legally force them to return all documents to you. An amended Request for CCA or a SAR perhaps? Anybody who knows? Anybody who can help?

regards

DoubleU

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Surfer01,

Yes I agree, and sorry, but I have to add, I know this now. At the time I had never heard of CCC, let alone Payplan. So went with one that sounded good! Their name sounds like they are solicitors! In the process they took my (original) papers, never returned them and p[aid my fees to keep the creditors and DCA's poff my back. The calls and letters never ceised as they faithfully promised, and which I accepted in good faith. Now I have taken it all back, I have CCA'd all of them, and find some don't have properly executed C agreements. My argument is that they failed in their duties of Care to check whether my Credit agreements were enforceable and therefore compelled me in a) making payments that I should not have paid. and b) they did not apply due diligence on my state of affairs. I don't even know whether they actually did do CCA requests and when unenforceable, they just kept charging me? So, if you go back to my original post, do we have a case for asking the fees back??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose a lot depends on the type of agreement that you signed with them. In order to help you we probably would need to see the agreement along with the T & Cs but with all your detaisl removed. Unfortunatley what they tell you verbally and what is in the contract are two different things. What were they supposed to do for their monthly fee of £100?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Surfer01,

Thanks for your reaction.

I agree, that is a good starting point. I need to delve into the 'archives' and see if we still have it. If not, I will have to construe something that compels them to send me a 'eligible true copy' of the original agreement. I don't think this can be achieved with a variation of the CCA Request, because it would fall under a different law or section. I will have to write to them, I suppose by recorded delivery and see what happens. I'll get back on this, I need to speak to 'her who is in charge'. I don't know where the papers are 'hidden'. I suspect that, like DCA's, they will know immediately what is going on as soon as they receive my letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Yes, thjat's a good idea. I was trying to avoid having to spend the tenner, but if I want to pursue this, I suppose that is the best solution.

Thanks Surfer01. I'll do that this week-end.

Bye

DoubleU

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...